Give the IP holders the right to run their own commercials, and some API to make it possible for them to change commercials out easily without a full reupload. Commercial lengths will manage themselves. In order to get this particular interface you need to share the cost of the downloads, which the system will broker. (e.g. the actual cost, not any cost to the user, since there is none.)

However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also.

Youtube sucks just as much as Hulu sometimes:This video is not available in your country
That was for "The Outer Limits", "Married with Children", "The Addams family", and "Terry Jones' Medieval Lives". There may be some shows available in my country, but I gave up trying at that point.

While i agree that youtube is a completely different platform to hulu, i think youtube is going to run into problems if it doesn't change its ways soon. In looking to get commercial content providers on-bored they stopped protecting their users and will take down just about anything instantly, this is loosing them users, who either go elsewhere (dailymotion, etc) or just using online videosites much because they can't find what they want. By shutting down the accounts of high volume user that infringed copy

However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also.

The problem is making money. Yes, Youtube is popular, but is it profitable yet? I don't know. Advertisers won't pay much on ad space until they can place their ads on premium content, and they won't be able to get premium content until they can show that advertisers are willing to pay a premium. It's a catch 22.

So content owners are saying they won't license their content for the Internet because the ad revenue isn't there. The advertisers are saying they won't pay much because the viewers aren't there. The viewers won't watch because content owners are busy pushing their products on broadcast channels while withholding them from the Internet. And around we go.

If things are going to change, someone has to make the leap, and it won't be the advertisers. It might be the content owners, but I'd bet on the viewers. Not so much a leap, but a gradual falling off-- people canceling their cable because they get enough shows on Hulu or iTunes to keep them content, and maybe they supplement those sources with some illegal stuff. So then advertisers and content owners will have to go online to get those viewers.

Well, how long can Google keep the thing floating? They probably have a lot of time to work it out, and it's worth taking some time to be the leader in yet another space... if they can maintain their lead, anyway.

The problem is making money. Yes, Youtube is popular, but is it profitable yet? I don't know. Advertisers won't pay much on ad space until they can place their ads on premium content, and they won't be able to get premium content until they can show that advertisers are willing to pay a premium. It's a catch 22.

Estimates vary, but most analysts put YouTube's loss to Google at between $250 million and $500 million per year, with the bulk of that being due to bandwidth costs. The big problem is almost no on

Ok let me let you in on a secret that isn't a secret in any way. Yes it's profitable. No youtube.com itself does not net a profit. The profit is on the analytics of that traffic. Google isn't a fly by night company who fails to monetize traffic. Reach (attaching contextual, demographic, behavioral, etc. information to a unique id of a visitor) is the primary way to increase hits in your ad server (versus a default ad being served because of a "

However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also

Google is losing over a quarter of a billion dollars a year on YouTube just from bandwidth costs. How long are they going to be willing to keep that up?

I hate to break it to you, but if your countries' advertisement rates vs exorbitant bandwidth cost ratios do not make financial sense to web entertainment companies (such as facebook, hulu, youtube, veoh) in these tough times you are likely to be cut off, or about to be cut off from the spigot!

Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia users make up the huge percentage in many of these sites, but their nations' ad rates are very low! The NY Times has a piece [nytimes.com] on it. Relatedly, it amazes me that facebook cla

I get it that advertising won't be enough, but I'd be more than glad to pay a few bucks a month to get sites like pandora or hulu working.
Actually I pay for US-based proxy, so I CAN access these services for a small fee, it just sucks that this money goes to hosting company not to the content providers.

Can't do it. It's like exporting software - we, the USA, have to make sure certain technologies do not get exported out of the country. The US Congress, in their wisdom, put these export restrictions on software and other media because we all know that the USofA is the only country in the World that is capable of developing technology.

Why, just think of what could happen if the terrorists got a hold MS Excel or Hulu! They could bombard every city in the US with shitty TV programming and keep track of the d

You get a funny , but remember your addiction is a win for American culture. Big media doesn't need to change it's business model when purveyors of what it has to offer can't "quit anytime it wants". Much like a certain other monopoly.

I was surprised to click on the YouTube shows and movies links above and find that they actually worked here in the UK. The content selection isn't huge, but combined with iPlayer there's probably still more than I have time to watch. There isn't even any point in pirating content that the studios don't make available over here - there's already more stuff available legally than I have time to watch, and if they don't want to make their products available to me then I won't go out of my way to see them.

That sucks. But can't non-Americans just route through a proxy or something?

I'd probably also blame this on your networks, since they syndicate many of these shows. It would probably violate the contracts to allow non-Americans to view the shows before your local neetwork has shown the program. The question is why is there often such a delay before the foreign network airs the show? If there isn't a delay than this is really stupid.

But really I often just don't understand Hollywood. They bitch that China

I agree 100%. I suppose I wouldn't mind the region-blocking if there was a local alternative, but there isn't. Why block SNL if there isn't an alternative place I can go watch a clip? Who are they protecting?

It annoys me to no end that I have to get up and click a stupid button to continue EVERY TIME an ABC online show goes to commercial. At least Hulu understands that people wanting to watch TV on the Internet might actually want to do so on their TV. I'll never visit ABC's online site again once those shows are up on Hulu.

Hulu also buffers continuously, rather than treating commercials and the show's segments like separate streams. For people like me with slow internet connections (mine is barely fast enough for 480p), that means no delay after a commercial, instead of 20 seconds of buffering.

And unlike Youtube, there's none of that random jerking. I have four computers in my house, and every single one of them jerks/jolts on the worst quality youtube vids.

oh please. You-tube hasn't been "you"-tube for a long time. Half the content is clips of shows, full movies uploaded in 9000 parts for the 3 people on the planet who can't figure out torrents, and porn ads that you-tube won't take down.

I don't see why google doesn't just put some basic google text ads on the right of youtube served up based on the description of the video and the content of the comments. Heck I just went there now and saw an ad for Civony (http://www.civony.com/tour.php). So whats the problem? Not enough ad revenue to offset the bandwidth charges?

They pop ads up at the bottom, seemingly based on the description/comments or possibly their speech recognition technology. I mean, I was just watching the latest Mr. Chi-City video [youtube.com], and up pops an advert for a tickets company.

I don't see why google doesn't just put some basic google text ads on the right of youtube served up based on the description of the video and the content of the comments

The big problem is that advertisers don't want their ads to show up next to videos that will offend their customers. YouTube is full of truly disgusting content, and it is almost impossible to pick keywords that will hit the places you would like your ad to be without also hitting a lot of disgusting videos.

I am eager to see the old cable subscription model fail, so we can actually have some decent internet speeds here in the US.
If these companies have trouble monetizing this new approach, that won't exactly break my heart, though.

Would it though, if they had to cancel your favorite show because there just isn't enough money to justify making it?

I'd be okay with that, its not like TV is a necessity or anything. I could probably live my life just as well (if not better) without an idiot box. But then again I'm not very typical, since all I really watch on the damn thing is news and Dirty Jobs. One of which I can get on the internet with richer content, the other I really don't care too much about.

On-demand from Comcast has commercials."On-demand" from Hulu has less commercials.On-demand with Comcast costs me money."On-demand" from Hulu costs me nothing.On-demand with Comcast has practically everything, but it costs money to watch."On-demand" from Hulu has practically everything but is free to watch.

I care, because finally I will be able to just pay for a connection to the internet.

Right, because Youtube is that much better. Sure there's a lot of stuff, but if you want anything of value, that's few and far between. And good luck if you want any semblance of consistency. It's not that the major networks don't produce crap it's that you're not really meant to watch absolutely everything. As much as I hate most programming there are still shows here and there that are worth watching.

Despite you're animosity towards the networks, there's a huge number of programs that wouldn't be availabl

I do download music and videos, but its not the stuff that the major networks produce.

That's because you're young, and, consequently, have little money.

In 10 years your tastes will have ossified, the lead singer of your favorite goth-noise-emo-trance band will be hosting a gameshow on VH1, and you'll have disposable income. Then you'll be part of the desirable demographic all these broadband deals are being scripted to attract.

Heh, it happens. You'll see, it's not cynicism at all... it's biological. The interests you are imprinted with in your youth stay with you for the rest of your life. Sure you will notice new things and check them out but when you want to feel youthful again - strangely enough you'll go listen to the band you listened to in high school. That's how memory imprinting works.

I'm surprised that this AC's most insightful comment has not already been modded all the way up.

From the summary:

Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube in order to attract more advertisers.

Why is that? Pardon me, but I go to youtube for everything from crazy mashups and ukulele instruction videos, vids of my friends in Alaska demonstrating their proficiency with the Chinese broadsword and other friends in Baltimore displaying their latest performance in the Brooklyn Battlefest. A guy playing the Super Mario theme on the balalaika. Some 8 year old kid in Japan shredding the hell out of a Jeff Beck tune.

Are you telling me that Disney will having videos like this?

Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

Because the current opinion is the youtube business model doesn't work. It is similar to a coffee shop trying to make money off of random local performances while the radio stations get contracted to play Britney Spears a certain percentage of the time.

I'm not saying that I know the solution, but it is inevitable for an internet video content provider to start partnering with the "professional" studios and move the from the broadcast TV service business model to the streaming online video business model.

Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

Because Google's business model is losing a quarter of a billion dollars a year on YouTube (that's the low end of published estimates)? Because Hulu will have higher advertising revenue this year than YouTube, on much lower traffic?

Please excuse me for not being exactly thrilled by the news, as Hulu is not available outside the USA (and many other content providers). For all the rest of us mere mortals, the "news" is as useful as the information about the weather last week in Tahiti.

The major downside to this deal IMHO is the disappearance of the most viewed categories from both youtube and google video. Now we have the Most Popular categorie which consists of fred, disney, american idol and the like. I miss being able to look up a list of most viewed, by country and date.

Personally, I think this is great news. Competition is a good thing. If Youtube was the only destination for video, that type of monopoly would - eventually - prove to be bad for everyone. Even if it is "do no evil" Google.

Several months ago, I canceled my TV service. I use Hulu quite often to watch the shows I want to see. They are always there, commercial interruptions are minimal and video/audio quality is good. And that is just using VGA cable from my laptop to DLP HDTV @ 720p res and a headphone-to-RCA

Spend an extra $200 bucks on a good antennae + receiver with HDMI and you'll feel even better about canceling cable (that is if you get good OTA HD reception). It's a one time cost and you get very high quality HD of network shows which may or may not make it to Hulu (Olympics was a good example).

Disney does NOTHING for free.
I fear for Hulu, I watch an assortment of shows every week at my convenience in HD and I really like it. Adding shows from Disney/ABC is a great addition to the service, however I am afraid that now they may try adding a premium pay service. I use Hulu because it is free, if it is no longer free, I will not use it. I'll quit watching the shows or I'll torrent them. Most people wont pay either; Hulu, Don't shoot yourself in the head and start charging.

i never watched videos at ABC.com because the site always required more than i was willing to install (or mess) in my PC. i just decided to give them another try and see what their current requirements for streaming videos are.... and guess what? surprisingly -- they changed it! however -- not surprisingly -- the new requirements are still too restrictive. currently, their videos wont play (and, given their nature, that really isnt any loss) just because i'm a happy user of Win2000.... O.o

TNT is another loser who will eventually take their content to Hulu. on TNT.com the user is required to install some Microsoft DRM plugin crap.... those companies shoot themselves in the foot when they make their sites so picky! with Hulu, it just works! you only need a browser (ANY!) and the Flash plugin. it has never asked me to install anything! btw, YouTube and PBS have got some shows online as well....and they also just work!

the other thing i like about Hulu is their choice of Flash player. it exposes the QUALITY options (HIGH, MEDIUM and Low), which can be the difference between a choppy and a smooth playback. i hope they dont remove it (seems to be the trend)!

what's with that anyway? many websites are doing away with the QUALITY option and just imposing the (more resource-intensive) HIGH setting! geez, sometimes that setting makes Flash just plain unwatchable in my Athlon 3000. why are developers removing an option that is actually useful?!?! it was fine the way it was before when it defaulted to HIGH but let you change it. what's next? are they going to remove the FULLSCREEN option too?

I like Hulu because it actually works. In particular, it works on Linux with no fussing (in my experience) whereas the players on other sites often don't work, or require onerous downloads and installs (which are usually Windows-only). Hulu just works fine on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

Hulu is also a "one stop watch" at this point. For a while, I experimented with keeping track of different shows via different official websites. It was painful because each site had a slightly different interface... but worse, each network's online streaming site seem to want to change their format every so often. This makes it even more annoying to to watch a few shows in a row, because your bookmarks have died (if their format was even bookmarkable!) and you have to search anew for what you want.

Hulu, instead, centralizes everything so that you only have to get used to the one (stable!) interface. And the accounts they offer make it easy to keep track of what shows you've watched... and you can even have your next subscription auto-play after you finish watching a show. It's the way TV "should" be: a channel that continually plays only shows you care about.

Despite the things Hulu has going for it, I worry about all this consolidation. Hulu is fast becoming the de-facto supplier for online streaming of TV shows. And this means that they will soon have a monopoly-like control, and will no doubt start abusing it. I really wish that competitors would spring up (and that the networks would license to multiple streaming-aggregator-sites).

And yeah, it does indeed suck that Hulu doesn't work outside the US. So much money (in targeted, country-specific advertising!) is being left on the table.

I agree that Hulu is much better because it runs on Linux. It also has a better interface and it doesn't kick you out halfway through a long episode. I use it now instead of my VCR.
Does ABC's website work outside the US? I'm guessing probably not. So, Hulu sucks, but no worse than ABC/Fox/CBS/whatever.
Now, if you go through one of the anonimizer proxy services, you can fool Hulu into thinking you are in the States. Or you could just get the torrents like everybody else.

I just use EZTV.. every day it lists shows that are airing that day.. and I pretty much have ones that I regularly download (torrents), which is based upon whether or not there are say 2 shows on at the same time, or are cable shows, since I don't have a DVR or cable.. It's also good, in that sometimes I find shows that I would probably otherwise ignore.. For example, I never watched Chuck.. but I was bored one day not long ago, and tested out the first episode, and eventually downloaded all the episodes,

I tried using Hulu. It was designed not to let me press the pause button and let the entire show download over my cheap DSL (my usual practice with any flash videos that are higher bandwidth than my internet). It would only buffer the next several seconds, I assume to prevent me from downloading the entire file. I never went back and had to go back to using other sources of television that exist online...

Agreed. My Comcast broadband connection is not fast enough to play back a Hulu stream without freezing while it re-buffers every few minutes. I think they're shaping the traffic, or something.

But, yeah. I've used Hulu exactly twice. Once to see what it was like, and once to watch an episode of the Office my Tivo missed because I'd accidentally disconnected the power. Not being able to buffer up is a huge problem.

Hulu has "fake full screen". Not just Flash's full screen mode that turns off when you click away, but you can maximize an individual window for viewing. That means you can put it on your secondary monitor & use the first monitor just fine. I like that. If they stuff some commercials in, that's fine by me. That's more than acceptable for good video quality & being able to catch up on missed shows. And their commercials are funny.

Hulu and YouTube are two completely different different things. Sure, they're both web-based streaming services.

But YouTube was founded on providing any average Joe with a way of putting their own home videos and generated content up for anybody to stream. From day one YouTube has fought legal battles because of TV shows and full length movies finding their way onto YT.

Hulu, on the other hand, is a joint venture between major networks and exists for the sole purpose of legally streaming their shows (a

Their video player is absolutely atrocious. Well, it's excellent when it works, but it rarely ever works. Last I tried (a few months ago), it crashed with IE and loaded a blank page with Firefox. And of course their support form didn't actually submit the request as the submit button was just a link to about:blank. And they didn't respond to my email to the general network email.
At least Hulu actually works.

I like Hulu, but does everyone need to be on it? What if Hulu is slow, has problems, etc. I'd like multiple sites. It's fine for them to be on Hulu if they have their own video site too (fox.com vs. hulu.com for the same videos on different servers).

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) is a publicly owned operation and thus has a obligation to make content available to all Canadians via T.V (Air) Cable (free) or the Internet. However the site is a bit of a mosaic of formats they stream and what exactly is available.

However, if you go to cbc.com/fifth you will get an ideal example of how things should be. Last 5-10 seasons made available without commercials, but also each episode has an area to get more information on the story at hand as well as giving

Eh, people already get to watch those shows for free... Advertisers foot the bill when its on broadcast TV. Why should web viewing be any different? For now I'll just stick to Tivo and watch what I want when I want, assuming I get whatever channel it gets broadcast on. No worrying about all the crap that you have to go through to watch on Hulu or when ABC decides I should watch the show.

Hulu is US only.
Nothing to see here, Rest-of-World. You're out of zone.
Move along and check out the vids on YouTube, DailyMotion (and bittorrent) as usual.
These people don't want your money....so don't give them any.

Can we please not get more this crap about Hulu? Most of internet users see "Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States", so please don't post such trash on/.

I find it remarkable, really, that ABC virtually doesn't exist for me. The un-channel of everything I would never watch and hadn't for years before Pushing Daisies and don't again after they canned that "loser" that was only nominated for something like 2-1/2 dozen awards.

Seriously, no one gives a shit. Just keep that free video flowing and keep this Idiocracy rollin' and no one will care whether they have to surf to youtube.com, hulu.com, goatse.cx, iamafaggotassbitch.com, or whatever. Free everything is the way of the future. Can't you all see that we're headed for a Star Trek economy, where money is obsolete? God bless Obongo!

John Lennon never did sing,
"Imagine there is no money.
Its easy if you do.
No more long term debt above us.
No more bitting off more than you can chew."